Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cscheiner/La'o Hamutuk

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted on agreement of user. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cscheiner/La'o Hamutuk

Deleted article restored to userspace so that the author could work on it. Hasn't been edited since it was restored on October 26^th, and the author hasn't edited since either. I asked on the user's talk page whether he would mind moving it offline but received no response. As Wikipedia is not a free web host, I'm bringing it here. In my opinion, the nominator has had enough time to at least show some sign that he was going to use it, so delete. Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have you tried emailing the user? I don't know that I like deleting content that could potentially be used, although it doesn't really matter too terribly much since deletion can always be undone. I would suggest, though, that this deletion be with the proviso that if the user does show up and ask for another shot at the article, he should be permitted to have it restored. BigDT 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think I did - I'll try that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no rush to delete it. It's only been a little over a month. If it was policy to delete all encyclopedia-related material from the userspace a month after the user stops editing, then we'd have a policy page for that. --- RockMFR 12:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So when do you suggest we delete it? It's not that he hasn't turned it into an article in a month, it's that he's never even touched it in all that time. There is no policy page for a time limit on restored material, because a strict limit is unnecessary. In my opinion a month is easily long enough to at least show some sign of life, and any longer is getting close to indefinite. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, we would delete all the stubs that haven't been edited in over two years because they will never "show some sign of life". A month is not enough time. --- RockMFR 14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK to delete. I appreciate BigDT's suggestion that Sam email me (the user). He did, and I was unaware that this would have been deleted, thinking that "my" user space was safe for a while. But now I realize the concern, and have copied the page under discussion to my local computer, so feel free to delete it. Wikipedia is one of many tasks on my "to do" list, and I'll get around to it someday, but I don't know when. So if you are concerned about the space, you can take it down.
I imagine most Wikipedia authors don't work on Wikipedia as their top priority, so I encourage a more lenient policy on this sort of thing to increase the breadth and diversity of contributors. Those who are experts on what they write about are probably very busy.
Thanks. --Cscheiner 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.